First Department Puts the “Heavy” Back in Heavy Metal and Grants Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion as to Labor Law § 240(1)
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously reversed a Supreme Court, New York County decision that denied plaintiff’s partial summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
In Macaulay v. New Line Structures & Development, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05284, plaintiff was struck on the head when an unsecured heavy metal panel that was being removed from a louver broke and free and fell. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action and after oral argument, the Supreme Court, New York County denied plaintiff’s motion due to a question of fact as to whether the gravity-related hazard was di minimis.
The Appellate Division, First Department disagreed, noting that both plaintiff and defendant’s witnesses testified that the subject panel was about four feet wide and eight feet tall, and plaintiff and his coworker estimated that it weighed between 150 to 200 lbs. As such, plaintiff was exposed to an elevation-related hazard that was not di minimis and is within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1), and the accident was proximately caused by a failure of the defendants to provide him with safety devices offering adequate protection from gravity-related hazards.
This First Department disagreed with the defendants’ argument that because plaintiff and his co-workers were removing or prying loose the paneling at the time of the incident, the accident was not gravity-related. The First Department also rejected arguments highlighting discrepancies between plaintiff’s sworn testimony and the statement attributed to him in the incident report were sufficient to create an issue of fact when it was undisputed that plaintiff was injured when an unsecured panel fell onto his head.
Is it really a First Department decision if there isn’t a determination that the inconsistences in plaintiff’s narrative of the incident were insufficient?
The difficulty here is determining how the Supreme Court, New York County reasoned that an eight feet tall, 150 to 200 lbs. panel was di minimis. The difficulty is compounded because there is no long form order laying out the reasoning for the lower Court’s decision.
The Macaulay decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
